The truth about tiny tupperware, 1200 calorie diets, and misery in general

Everywhere I turn these days it seems like there is some new diet, some new program, or some new meal plan promising a perfect body…

Don’t be fooled by the pretty, multicolored containers, they may be bright, but they are definitely depressing. So what if your body is telling you no thanks to that dry, rubbery chicken breast you meticulously portioned out into a blue red container (shows how much I know)? You packed it, so eat it.

It’s self-induced scarcity at its worst. And the problem with scarcity: it’s unsustainable, and typically ends in a binge and more weight gained than lost.

What’s the deal with 1200 calories anyways

Speaking of scarcity, let’s talk about this whole 1200 calorie diet thing. Why do we women automatically assume if we want to lose weight that our calorie limit is 1200?

1200 calories is fewer than the world health organizations definition of starvation for women. 1200 calories is fewer than the number required to induce a semi-starvation state in the Minnesota Starvation Experiment.

This study was performed on men, eating slightly over 1500 calories per day, here are some of the results (as quoted from wikipedia- emphasis is my own, because TL;DR):

“Most of the subjects experienced periods of severe emotional distress and depression. There were extreme reactions to the psychological effects during the experiment including self-mutilation (one subject amputated three fingers of his hand with an axe, though the subject was unsure if he had done so intentionally or accidentally). Participants exhibited a preoccupation with food, both during the starvation period and the rehabilitation phase. Sexual interest was drastically reduced, and the volunteers showed signs of social withdrawal and isolation. The participants reported a decline in concentration, comprehension and judgment capabilities, although the standardized tests administered showed no actual signs of diminished capacity. There were marked declines in physiological processes indicative of decreases in each subject’s basal metabolic rate (the energy required by the body in a state of rest), reflected in reduced body temperature, respiration and heart rate.”

Considering the difference between male and female calorie intake, it wouldn’t be surprising to see similar results when females eat only 1200 calories per day.

The history of the 1200 calorie diet

I’ll tell you where that number came from. That number is the minimum number of calories required to achieve an adequate intake of all essential nutrients. Meaning you won’t likely get beriberi (vitamin B1 deficiency disease) as long as you’re eating 1200 calories a day. But it doesn’t mean you are getting adequate energy to fuel your body.

It doesn’t mean your body won’t think you’re starving and ramp up the hunger and reward factor of food the minute you’re around an abundance of delectable goodies.

Your body loves you. It’s attempting to keep you from starving. It’s not trying to sabotage your results. It just wants you to survive the next famine it assumes is coming.

Stop fighting your body to try to maintain a diet that is destroying your body.

What we really want isn’t in the container or the restrictive diet

Why is this misery so alluring? Why do we see others packing their food into deplorable containers of doom and want to do the same?

Because there’s a kind of person we want to be – and we see controlling our food as a sign that we are that person.

We want to be organized.

We want to be disciplined.

We want to be that person that worked for something, and then got it.

We want to be achievers, the people who don’t just talk about change, but make change.

We want to be the people that take care of ourselves

We want to be rockstars. (figuratively speaking of course, I’m not sure I could personally handle groupies).

And we assume that controlling our food intake is a sign that we are that person.

But it’s not. It’s a sign that we’ve lost our freedom. We’ve lost connection with ourselves. We’ve succumbed to society’s standards of what we should eat, instead of nourishing our bodies well.

What you want isn’t found in a restrictive diet, it’s found in your daily habits, in the choices you make, in allowing yourself freedom and pleasure, while still kicking butt at life. You don’t need to rely on a diet to tell you who you are.

If you’re nodding your head in agreement, here’s what I need you to do: share this post. Share it with everyone you know. We women need to stick together and build each other up, and spread the message of unconditional self love, moderation, and happiness as the keys to true fitness and nourishment… not the next fad diet.

Thank you in advance! -Ashley

Get the checklist:

10 things you're really craving

when you reach for chocolate

Check your email inbox, your checklist is on it's way!

Love This? You Might Like These, Too!

Ashley is a Registered Nurse with a Master’s Degree in Human Nutrition. Ashley loves her son, her husband, and lifting heavy things then putting them back down repeatedly. She is a nutrition, fitness and weight loss coach and blogs at www.youtrition.net.

9 Comments

Rebecca Cengiz-Robbs
on June 19, 2015 at 3:49 pm

Whenever I heard “you are what you eat” I think of pigs in a blanket. 🙂

LOVE this post. And I will share. I used to haul a cooler to work with my kazillion containers. And I was sad, couldn’t concentrate, was obsessed with food.

Now I carry my Youtrition lunch bag to work. It’s small, cute, and it fits my lunch and snack for the day.

Amy
on June 20, 2015 at 9:17 am

I do use some plasticware for my lunch just not send a bunch of trash to the landfill, but I have always refused to follow these miserable fad diets that make you put specific portions in specific types of plastic containers. It’s too much work (and if I see another “meal prep” picture post or 21-Day-Fix related post on my Facebook feed I’ll scream, lol)! What I prefer to do for lunch is make a big batch of something that actually sounds yummy to me and eat off that for lunch, and alternate it with a homemade sandwich or something else if I get too burnt out on it. This post made me laugh, especially the part about stuffing as much cheese into the 1/3 cup container as possible, lol! 😛

Ashley
on June 20, 2015 at 9:23 am

Ha ha! Yeah, I have nothing against putting lunch in containers, the post was specifically directed at the 21 day fix containers, just trying to be discreet 🙂 Your lunch plan sounds a lot like mine.

Melissa Rogers
on June 20, 2015 at 9:53 pm

I love this! I am laughing at your comments under the containers. 🙂 I need the chocolate container too! So much emphasis is on meal planning and eating x number of times per day it’s overwhelming. I so appreciate your views. And I’ll share!
Thanks so much for all you do and share with us.

I’d slightly challenge you here. I’m 5 foot tall exactly, and even at 1250 calories without very careful macronutrient management (carbohydrate restriction mostly) and an exercise regime that involves 30km Street running per week plus about 2 hours weights, I PILE ON weight. If I reduce carbs, regardless of whether I go high protein or high fat, my weight stabilises and drops back to around 118 pounds again. However doesn’t matter what my macros look like, if I go over 1250 or even only slightly drop exercise, I gain weight at a frightening rate. I relaxed my low carb stance again recently to see was this still a problem and I pilled on 7 pounds in under a week. I’m still struggling to get it down again without very severe restriction.

Great question and thanks for asking. So carbohyrdate restriction does lead to a sudden decrease in weight… not because of fat loss, but because our muscle glycogen gets depleted. Glycogen, as you may well know, is our body’s natural carbohydrate storage, and when we drop our carb intake, we start using up those stores.

The thing with glycogen is, we store 2 grams of water for every 1 gram of carbohydrate. So when we deplete that glycogen, we are eliminating a lot of water, as well as starches from our muscle.

That 7 or so pounds is most likely 99.9% glycogen/water. So if you weren’t eating carbs for a time, then started all of the sudden, that would be the likely increase in weight, your body has started storing glycogen and water in your muscles again.

Because if you think about it 3500 calories per pound, X7 pounds = 24,000 calories. If you were to gain 7 pounds of fat in a week, it would require a calorie excess of 24000 calories. That’s eating 3500 calories PER DAY over maintenance… that would be hard for anyone to do.

I hope this explanation helps 🙂

My though for you is this: is this type of restriction sustainable in the long term for you? If not it may be worth considering a different approach that is more sustainable in the long term 🙂

Ash
I’ve been doing it fairly persistently for ten years nearly. I was at 40% body fat but now mostly 26-29%. It’s sustainable but HUGE effort. I wish there was some easier way,
Laura

Melissa
on September 24, 2015 at 10:14 am

I don’t mean any offense, but it may be worth looking into what your basal metabolic rate is. I’m also small in stature (5’3″), and have looked into this periodically just to check in on the minimum I need to be taking in to be productive throughout the day, and the absolute minimum has never been less than 1500 calories a day. That doesn’t count any of the active calories I burn in walking, exercising, etc. If going off a very regimented diet and exercise regime causes you to rapidly gain weight, I’d wager that it’s because your weight goals are below what your body wants to stabilize at. Everyone has a set weight range that their bodies can maintain without too much effort, and it takes a lot of work to either exceed or undercut it. Your body may be signaling to you that this isn’t the right weight for you to be maintaining.